Can Intelligent Design (ID) be a Testable, Scientific Theory?

What is Intelligent Design (ID)?

In essence, ID is a statistical study in which the product is unlikely to occur by naturalistic process alone. For many things, especially in the arena of biology, it is difficult or impossible at this time to generate any kind of statistical model to even do the test. However, this will not always be the case. The biological model for ID will stand or fall on the basis of genetics. There is a certain statistical probability for mutations, which is absolutely known. There are also known genetic sequences that differ from one another. Evolution claims that all life is descended from previous life, and the fossil record gives us the approximate time at which species appeared. Statistical calculations can be made on the basis of divergence. Complete genomic sequences are just beginning to be completed. There will always be some unknowns or uncertainties, so the level of ID will have to be pretty good to be accepted by the general scientific community.

Is Intelligent Design (ID) a valid scientific theory?

ID theory has been criticized on the following basis:

No model has been presented

Since there is no model, there are no predictions from the theory

No refinement of the theory is possible

In an attempt to be all-inclusive, most ID proponents have failed to

define the Intelligent Designer

reject young-earth creationism

A nebulous theory can never be tested. The Designer must be proposed or there will be no model to test. Most of the potential Designers are described in religious works that contain statements about the natural world that can be tested against the record of the natural world. For this reason, it is necessary to identify the Designer. Because of the failure to reject the poor "science" of young earth creationism, ID has been labeled as a repackaging of scientific creationism. Deceptive or unsupported "science" cannot be allowed to be part of ID or the entire concept will be discredited.

The claim has been made that ID has no place in science and is never used in the study of science. This is not true. In fact, all of the following areas of science use evidence of ID as the major or sole means of study. Even though the designer is not a supernatural agent, but intelligent humans, the principles involved in studying these areas of science can be applied to the study of supernatural ID.

Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?

Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings?

Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?

SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?

ID is already used in many areas of science. In archeology, we know that stones don't naturally occur in square shapes piled on top of each other. They show signs of intelligent design (although the designer is not supernatural). A recent example is an underwater rock formation off the coast of Cuba. According to the discoverers, the formation consist of smooth, geometrically shaped, granite-like rocks that are laid out in structures resembling pyramids, roads and other structures at more than 2,000 feet in a 7-3/4 mile-square area. How does it exhibit intelligent design? Natural formations of rocks do not have geometric shapes arranged in recognizable structures.

Likewise, rocks do not naturally have pointed ends with patterns of chips along the sides. This pattern is extremely unlikely through natural processes, so we say that it exhibits intelligent design. In the science of forensics, scientists examine patterns of trauma, for example, to determine if it has a natural or intelligent cause. ID is already used in many areas of science.

Probably the best example is the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI). Radio waves can be produced by a variety of natural and "intelligent" processes. Naturally-produced radio waves exhibit patterns of changes in wavelength that are due to random or periodic variation over time. There is no pattern that would indicate any kind of intelligence designed the signal. However, over short periods of time, the pattern could occur by chance with the probability inversely related to the length of time that the signal demonstrates a pattern. Therefore, by examining the signal statistically, scientists can determine if its cause is intelligent or natural. Thus far, intelligent design theory has eliminated (falsified) all extraterrestrial examples of radio waves monitored as being the product of intelligent design.

Characteristics of a successful ID model

A reasonable ID model must possess all of the following characteristics:

The intelligent Designer is identified

The model is detailed

The model can be refined

The model is testable and falsifiable

The model can make predictions

How does the biblical ID model score on the above characteristics? The intelligent Designer is identified as the Creator God of the Bible. The biblical model of creation is detailed in that the major creation events are listed in a temporal sequence. Dozens of creation passages make specific claims about the nature of the world. The model can be refined by putting together all the biblical creation passages into a coherent, detailed model. Many skeptics claim that ID models cannot be tested, but then go on to state that the biblical descriptions of nature are incorrect. You can't have it both ways! A biblically-based ID model is eminently testable and falsifiable. Contrary to the claims of opponents, the biblical model does make predictions. For example, it claims that all men are descended from one man, Noah, whereas women come from up to 4 different blood lines (see Genesis 6). One would predict from this claim that males would have lower genetic variability on their y-chromosomes, compared to the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed on exclusively through women. Published scientific studies confirm this biblical prediction, since the last common ancestor dates for the y-chromosome tend to be less than that for mtDNA (see Evolutionary Descent of Man Theory- Disproved by Molecular Biology).

Characteristics of Christian supernaturalism

Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism

Characteristic

Anti-Supernatural

Supernatural

Cosmology

eternal multiverse

single transcendent beginning

Time

infinite space time foam

finite duration

Laws of physics

breakdown at 10-43 sec.

fixed

Fine tuning

explained by infinite # universes

extreme fine tuning is designed

Probability

only likely events will occur

creation involved miracles that could not occur by chance

The table above gives some of the characteristics of Christian supernaturalism compared to naturalism. Contrary to atheistic assertions, the Christian ID model does not claim that the universe is perfect. The idea that a perfect God would not create a universe less than "perfect" is logically flawed. The biblical model states that the universe is flawed - for the purpose of allowing humans the choice to love or reject God. The model also states that this imperfect universe will be replaced by a perfect universe once its purpose has been fulfilled. Those humans who chose to love God will be perfected by their own permission into sinless, loving creatures. Why didn't God create this perfect universe in the first place? Forcing creatures to be prefect would abrogate their free will and prevent them expressing true love, since they would have no choice. Humans who want to spend eternity with God chose now to give up their ability to sin or be unloving in the future new universe, where no such choices will exist.

Predictions of the Christian ID model compared to naturalism

Because of the nature of the laws of physics, it seems likely that none of the characteristics in the above table can be absolutely known. However, there are a number of predictions that each theory makes, which can be tested by further study of the universe and life on the earth.

What are some specific predictions made by the two models?

Predictions of Naturalism vs. Christian ID

Characteristic

Anti-Supernatural

Christian ID

1.

Single transcendent beginning

will be refuted

evidence will increase

2.

Fine tuning

"design" will be shown to be an artifact, due to incomplete knowledge

more examples of extreme fine tuning will be found, indicating true design

3.

Uniqueness of earth

many rocky planets with oceans and continents will be found

earth-like planets will be found to be rare or non-existent

4.

Existence of life in the universe

life will be found to be abundant in our galaxy, since it is simply the properties of chemistry and physics

extraterrestrial life will be rare or non-existent and advanced life will be found only on earth

5.

Prebiotic chemistry

a naturalistic scenario for the origin of all biochemical pathways and replicative molecules will be found

the universe was designed to support living systems, but their creation required ID by God

6.

Origin of Life

Life emerged late, during ideal environmental conditions. Life began as simple systems (pre-bacteria)

Life emerged early under adverse conditions. Life has always been complex

7.

New designs in nature

Complex new designs would be rare and develop slowly whereas simple transitions would be common

No restriction on designs with the possibility that new designs would be created "overnight"

8.

Mass extinction events

Slow recovery

No restrictions on "recovery" period as new species are created

What is the scorecard so far? Science tells us that:

There is no evidence for more than one universe or one creation event.

Examples of fine tuning continue to increase. Some parameters designed to within a part in 10120.

No other rocky planets have been found. Most planets found are large gas giants orbiting very close to their stars.

No other life found. SETI has been completely unsuccessful.

It is impossible to chemically produce many basic molecules required for any living system.

Neither the biochemical nor replicative pathways have been described. In fact, many scientists think that they could not have arisen by any naturalistic means.

Contrary to the expectations of evolutionary theory, the fossil record is replete with complex transitions and new designs whereas simple transitions (intermediates) are rare. Evolutionary theory would expect the opposite to be true and to be reflected in the fossil record.

Evolution predicts slow recovery following extinctions and that those recoveries will be filled by the species surviving the extinction event. However, the fossil record indicates rapid recovery with completely different designs and species appearing within a period of tens of thousands of years or less.

This is not just a test of ID, but of a specific model of ID, old earth bibical creationism. I suppose the more specific the model, the easier it would be to test. While "ID" as a fuzzy concept may be too vauge to test, not so bibical creationism.

It isn't vagueness that counts, per se, it is refutability. If you can't test for something in a manner likely to refute it, if it's wrong, it isn't generally considered a scientific thesis, as per Carl Popper, which is good enough for me.

Strict creationism qualifies, I guess, and is refuted in innumerable ways. ID is, at best, a coin flip to my mind, as is SETI.

The author denigrates evolution/science because "Neither the biochemical nor replicative pathways have been described."

Yet he makes no attempts to describe the analogous physical agency of creation by Intelligent Design. This physical agency is likeliest to be revealed deep in the genetic makeup of living creatures. Given the increasing sophistication of genetic research that is an excellent area for research and theory about ID. In the meantime, it isn't fair to criticize evolution/science for not having a precise answer.

You sure are a fast reader. In less than nine minutes you found my post, read the long technical article, and composed your reply. That's real good don.

Don't get too mesmerized by your own creative acts. I read about 1/3 of this text--I scan for new arguments. If I detect an old argument, I don't feel obligated to chew up every bit of it.

Or maybe you just saw the words "testable creation model" and gave a knee-jerk response with a fluffy quote right out of the Naturalists Handbook.

Kindly indicate which part of my rather informally worded post strikes you as a "quote right out of the Naturalists Handbook".

Tell the truth, did you even read this article before posting your 'reply'?

Tell the truth--it makes you feel awfully special when you make a thread, doesn't it?

Let's just run a test here. Is my response relevant to the subject matter of the thread-----um, yes, by some incredible accident, so it seems. Does my post reference specific points in the article in context-----um, yes, by some incredible accident, the SETI response questions your assertion that it's a science.

Having completed the test, I now believe I have found the bug in the system. It seems to be your lack of mannerly restraint. If you have a response to the meat of my post, I will return, otherwise, I will take this as an implied request to withdraw from your thread which I will be more than happy to honor.

The foregoing is just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 19].

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.